Hello, WookMuff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
A Y Arktos has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Thank you for the positive feedback about the pictures - it cheered me up. I always enjoy visiting Narooma - it is not at all dificult to make the town look nice - it is a nice town! --A Y Arktos\talk21:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
…about no piping on disambiguation pages (re: random (comics))…
No big deal, I’m just rather pedantic sometimes, and I’m still learning myself. (And I overlooked the piping myself when I edited the page before.) :-) — TowerDragon21:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You maybe interested to know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has recently been nominated as a candidate to become a featured article. Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).
Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination, would be wonderful. Thanks -- Paxomen18:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.110.198 (talk • contribs) 06:17, October 30, 2006
No, sorry. You're still wrong. First off, you admit lacking familiarity with the issue at hand. second, she's not a foil. A foil's the guy batman catches in the opening of a story arc, to remind viewers that he's the greatest detective and so on. Instead, IVy is the main villian of the story arc. in a list of main characters for such a story, She'd likely be listed third or fourth, after batman, gordon, and either robin or alfred. she's the villian of a story, it doesn't 'happen' without her. her henchmen are secondary. Bruce Wayne's current passing fling is a secondary character. The snitch who batman goes to twice is a foil. Ivy's a main character. By you standard, all villians in the DC Universe are thus nothing but 'foils', easily beaten opponents who puff up the main character. Do not reinsert that information, you're categorically wrong. ThuranX20:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, you show you don't get it. Even the link you provide backs me up. Regretably, you won't ever understand why you're wrong. It's not my job to educate you. Do not reinsert incorrect information. ThuranX20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading: Image size should be kept to about 300px total. Click the "upload file" link on the left side of the page. Follow the rules from there. Use a descriptive filename. select the comics panels licensing template from the drop-down menu. Add relevent information about image: what is happening in the panel, artist, title, issue, publishers, etc. Any more questions, ask. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I'm trying my best to avoid changing english words to american. I'm sorry if I've done it, I don't mean to. There are certain words that I'm still learning when it comes to the english spelling (using s instead of z, the addition of u, etc) and if I've changed previous ones incorrectly, I'm sorry. It's not a geocentric egotistical thing, honest.
This is a bit of a spoiler, but I caught part of Access Hollywood saying that Nathan being the only one approaching Peter is somehow significant. I'm not sure if it's symbolic or not, though. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They might be from the kid, but it seems as if his dreams are more a product of his own powers rather than the kid's. I would think the kid would have a limited range, anyway. Having the abilitiy to telepathically reach anyone on the planet would certainly be a stretch. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am dead serious. If you so much as TOUCH my edits to Magneto again, I WILL get an administrator involved. this is your last warning. Your reverts are obviously malicious, misinforming and vandalistic in nature and intent, and break several policies. I will not allow you to impose your POV on this article, and I certainly do not want a revert war on my hands. Cease and desist immediately. -Sage Connerson23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am an Administrator. Sage Connerson, please see WP:VAND#What vandalism is not, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, and moderate your tone. "will not allow" "if you so much as TOUCH" and "cease and desist" are at odds with Wikipedia's methodology, as the note on every single edit page will tell you:
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
If I see you troll or making personal attacks again, I will block you. You've been warned already, now knock it off.--Docg00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you can sit the next 24 hours out. I have blocked you. Don't bother asking my 'why?' You know why. Baiting and trolling other users is unacceptable. Feel free to come back tomorrow and try to do focus on the encyclopedia.--Docg00:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you didn't see my warning. However, you shouldn't need a warning for that. Now, I will lift the block. Go back to editing, but do not attempt to provoke other users, and stay off Ace Class Shadow's talk page, unless you have some legitimate content issue to discuss. Any more nonsense, the block is back.--Docg01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we try a little closer to home, and something of better status..like say Jabba the Hutt. Also note at the bottom of the MOS, where you found your "example" it says "Keep in mind that the content in these articles may have changed since the time of their original listing here.". Also, they are listing articles that follow the MOS for fiction as a whole, not for individual sections or infoboxes. Secondly, he's a comic book character, and what's "essential" for him might not be the same for a film character. Bignole05:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same place you got "Captain Marvel" also lists both Jabba the Hutt and Padme Amidala (both of which are the only film fictional characters to be of FA status). Now, should we be using Captain Marvel as our reference, or two characters that are from the same medium? Bignole05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it also says them, I said that! As for your excuse, no. They are not film characters, they are used in the context of Star Wars characters. Their articles INCLUDE comics, games, novels, and possibly collectible card game stats for all I know. WookMuff05:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are film characters, where do you think they originated from? That is what an article about a fictional character should be like. Please read the entire MOS for writing about fiction and you'll see why Jabba and Padme are written the way that they are. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite, and fictional character articles should not be written as if they are biographies of actual people..because they are not actual people. Bignole05:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the very first section:
"Articles on fiction can approach their subject from two angles. In one method, articles can describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world. This may include:"
the author or creator;
the design;
the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative;
real-world factors that have influenced the work;
for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to *playing that character;
its popularity among the general public;
its sales figures (for commercial offerings);
its reception by critics;
a critical analysis of the subject;
the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and
a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional.
The other method says "The second approach treats the fiction as if it were real, and describes it from the perspective of the people and characters of the fictional universe. Topics covered may include:"
the birth and death dates of fictional characters;
a plot synopsis framed as biography;
performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices;
an exposition framed as the history of fictional locations or organizations; and
fictional background information on alien creatures presented as real-world science or anthropology.
This is followed by "This is often referred to as an in-universe perspective. Many non-Wikimedia wikis and independent fan-maintained websites take this approach, but it is not considered encyclopedic.
Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective."
If you actually read the Padme and Jabba articles, you'll see that it covers a vast range of things about the characters, not just their film appearances. Also, "in-universe" information could be kept to a minimum, or as the page says "Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own milieu. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. This is not inherently bad, if the fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article." As for the infobox, I point to the initial link that I provided. It discusses what should be in there, what shouldn't be in there, and what type of fictional characters create what type of exceptions to the rule. What you won't find in there are "family" and "enemies", because neither add anything. Freddy isn't part of "warring factions", he doesn't have an "allegiance". As it says "the same way, infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory"Bignole06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I say those things because if you had read everything you would have noticed them. Secondly, being "uncivil" wouldn't cause me to be "banned". I may be warned, or blocked for 24 hours (the latter of which I highly doubt), but not banned. Regardless, I said what I said because you were using examples and descriptions to support your argument that appeared to be out of place. Sending me a picture of Padme on a comic book cover does not mean that she is a "comic book character". Or origins started in film, the literature part is for context about the character. The same goes for Jabba. Articles about fictional characters are not "biographies". It's about what went into creating these characters, what have these characters done for society, or cinema as the case is for this one. It's about everything but what they did on screen (minus if they did something that was extremely notable, like something that is recognized in an award ceremony or something). What they do on screen, in their universe, is merely supposed to be minor detail to help non-fanboys/girls understand the context of the "out of universe" information. On the Freddy page, his "Character history" takes up almost more than half the page. The page is severly limited to what the character did on screen. There are a couple interviews and out-of-universe information at the bottom, but it pales in comparison to the "biography" above it. Bignole06:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it, it isn't about his "backstory". It's supposed to be about the character in the real world, and what went into creating him. Talking about him as if he's real isn't encyclopedic. If you get a chance, go back and read through the whole history, it's rather detailed. It could be worse, but it could be far better. Wiki isn't a substitution for watching a film, and the same goes for the characters in those films. Bignole07:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the powers are essentially the same. Empathy, to connect with somebody else and through that channel their power. I only thought it was worth adding to the article as WP:WAF dictates that character articles should try and keep an out-of-universe perspective. Oh, and you wouldn't have seen the power, then, if you only watched a bit after Prue died. She developed it at the beginning of season six and lost it half way through season seven, never to be used again. ~ZytheTalk to me!19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening. Unless you have a legitimate argument concerning the subject matter at hand, please refrain from simply trolling to begin arguments. You have done nothing either way to relay as to why you believe the article should be removed, and if you do feel that way, perhaps you should make it a candidate for speedy deletion so that it can be voted on and settled? In any case, pointing me to the Verification link was really cute, but I do not take well to your dry humor, which I could consider to be on the verge of a personal attack. I would be more than glad to talk about this in a civilized manor if you would be willing. Otherwise, please stop wasting my time and yours.
Thank you. ~kmwatcha
Hi there WookMuff. The reason I call it OR is because I can't see that the icon arrangement on the screen looks like the symbol. They were scattered about the screen (not in straight rows/columns) but I think whoever posted it was seeing things that weren't there. -- Chuq11:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the right thing to do to resist original research in Wikipedia articles. That said, it's better not to simply remove information unless you've made your best effort to (1) request reliable sources from those who added the info and (2) if it seems like useful and/or important information, to try to verify the info yourself. Ultimately, it's the burden of the people adding information to provide sources for it, though. Mangojuicetalk14:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the nature of the userbox, especially since it incorporates homosexuality of that user, it is best that you respect Wikipedia:user page and allow that user to add it himself. If you wish to demostrate userboxes you may do so on your own userpage or in a Wikipedia:sandbox. Mkdwtalk07:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an essoteric term and I think you can appreciate how it could easily be confused. I revert vandalism on Wikipedia. I see more personal attacks done in a single day than you can imagine. Please just go with the policy, it would just make life easier for us trying to keep wikipedia clean. Mkdwtalk07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't undo a users valid edit. I removed your link that points to a redirect page. That isn't something you should undo. If you do it again it could be considered vandalism. --Malevious Userpage•Talk Page•Contributions23:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't 100% sure on the fact of it being photoshopped, but it does look it. Either way it added nothing to the article, looked like perverse humor, and simply needed to go. RichMac(Talk)10:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually corrected that in dozens of articles, though it was before I registered. So don't feel bad.
MC2 is a particular favorite of mine, along with Elseworlds. And the obsession causes me to love Batman Beyond, too. CatherS10:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've seen that you deleted the entire language section out of the Covenant_(Halo) section. No worries, I'm not here to yell or chastise you; I'm here to explain my reasoning.
First off, Bungie Inc. has shown clear inconsistencies throughout all of their released game titles. The interchangeability of language among the Covenant is not the only case in Bungie history of game inconsistency. As I explained in the excerpt you deleted, Marathon, Marathon2, and Marathon: Infinity, all games made by Bungie Inc., all exhibited substantial differences throughout their games: Marathon2 was based on Marathon's storyline, but Marathon: Infinity acted as if the events in Marathon2 never happened. It says so too on the Marathon: Infinity page.
Secondly, I've merited the placement of that particular language section in the Covenant_(Halo) article partly because of how other games have treated foreign languages. In Hitman: Blood Money and Hitman: Contracts, foreign languages were spoken for a predominant length of the video game's plot, and were supplemented with English subtitles.
Hitman's not the only one.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl is a game completely done in Russian (even in the U.S. released version, ironically... trust me, I bought the game, I own it, I would know, plus you can also confirm this on the wiki article on it yourself). English subtitles are used everywhere in that game, so the theory that the player getting the chance to play the Covenant Arbiter in Halo2 has to merit the use of the English language is a faulty theory. Neil the Cellist00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WookMuff, I don't understand your rationale for removing the picture on My Turf War. You say that it spoils the episode summary for those that haven't seen the episode, yet what of the spoilers on each episode summary? And of the pictures on other episode entries? Further, when is a good time to re-insert the photo - when you've seen the episode? --Ninevah08:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The NIN link on the Halo 3 page clearly qualifies as vandalism to me. Nearly all the page editors have chimed in to say the NIN link is invalid, yet you and RevRagnarok keep reverting it back. The default in this case should be NO link, since the page is about the game Halo 3. That is why we began an RfC, so that we can get some neutral opinions. If they determine you're right, the change can be made. I strongly doubt that though, since your argument has as close to no merit as I can imagine.ZG13:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Wook. Pity we had to get into such a lame edit war over this NIN business. Just clearing up that I believe I have acted in good faith, as have you (unike some other editors involved in the war). Personally, it's reached the point where I no longer care enough. It's not that big a deal after all. I'll leave it to someone else to resolve one way or the other. Keep editing, --Yeti Hunter07:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a conspiracy as such; that would imply intent of the original naming of the song, which clearly predates the game. More like overzealous fanning. I'll be honest, I don't like NIN at all. When I first saw the disambig, I thought, oh, that's interesting, they called one of their songs "Halo 3", and thought nothing of it. Later I decided to follow the link and found out that the real name was HLAH, furthermore that the name "Halo 03" was extremely obscure and its reason for existence never stated, hence I decided it was inappropriate. Eh. Anyway, like I said, I'm over it. If you feel that strongly about it, this isn't important enough for me to fight. --Yeti Hunter21:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, Warriors for Innocence, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. I realise that you're no noob, and that this is not a joke article. But it really needs some evidence of notability before it has a chance of staying up. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk to me)08:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have obviously picked up that the issue is notability. It had been tagged because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. It could perhaps have been tagged differently as you suggest, but since it makes a number of unsubstantiated claims, I chose the speedy option. It's no big deal, in that if you can substantiate the notability, you can just recreate the article. If you haven't kept the article text, I can retrieve it for you. jimfbleak10:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sites that you link to are not independent, the WFI organisation clearly isn't, and although it says Livejournal took action, there is no external evidence. What you really need is some mentions form genuinely independent sources, such as the on-line versions of real newspapers etc. jimfbleak11:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I missed the CNet link altogether. Yes, that is more independent. To be on the safe side, you ought to find one or two more, since the criteria say multiple independent refs. jimfbleak11:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put the CNet bit as a ref, and mention the 14,000 Google hits (which isn't actually all that high, but might do) on the article talk page. I won't delete it if those changes are made, but obviously I can't speak for anyone else. I think that notability might still be an issue, but all you can do is post it and see. if you can expand it without making POV, that might help. jimfbleak15:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a comment to the admin's page. I note that while I slept the WfI stuff has been subsumed into livejournal, which perhaps solved the problem. jimfbleak05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no problem. I made it pretty! *laugh* Honestly, two days ago I had all sorts of neat, potentially suspension-worthy interests on my LJ. :P This 'issue' has been blown way out of proportion imho. :P Kyaa the Catlord10:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My utmost appologies for being a dick last night - don't really know why I have my idiot hat on but I did so I can only say sorry for that. What I've done is restored the artice and put it into your userspace. The link can be found at User:WookMuff/Warriors for Innocence. You don't need to worry - this will not get deleted, but before it get's moved back into the main article space, as has previously been discussed - you will need to find reliable sources to show the pages notability. If you wish to run sources by me, leave me the links on my talk page and I'll attempt to pop them into the article. Once again sorry and I hope this is a satisfactory arrangement for now. Ryan Postlethwaite09:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at LiveJournal. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. account suspension controversy is NPOV, Strikethrough07 is what the "fandumb" calls it please stop changing it.Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 11:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on LiveJournal for a period of twenty-four hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cite an argument you had with another editor in another article as proof of your edits in another. If you have a specific citation regarding the Potter family's current blood status, bring it. Otherwise, it is original research by synthesis, which Wikipedia doesn't allow. - Arcayne(cast a spell)04:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the way it works: when you write me a message on my User Page, you need to be polite and civil and non attack-y. See, when you follow those rules, you get a nice, civil conversation where we interact peacaable and find a solution within the rules that satisfies both of us. When you fairl to show some courtesy, you risk pissing off an editor who would prefer to not send you weeping into a corner, questioning your existence and self-worth and whatnot. Please try to keep that in mind, would you? Other editors might not give you a do-over, but I am. However, if you post another rude statement in my User Talk page, I will remove it and report you. I hope that illuminates the territory we currently find ourselves occupying, Wook. - Arcayne(cast a spell)09:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wook, I think you might want to look up 'threaten' in a dictionary.You weren't threatened, and I certainly don't feel threatened by you. I rather explicitly told you that being polite would allow you to maintain a presence on my Talk Page. There is even a box up there at the top that points out that rude messages would be removed at my whim. Apparently, you chose to not follow the instructions. Since you can't follow a relatively simple request, you don't get to post to my Talk Page anymore, and you just squandered about half of all the AGF you are ever going to get from me, Now, you may actually be dumb enough to think you are smarter than I am, and think that AGF isn't really a necessary tool here in WP, but I am afraid you are about to discover how many misunderstandings occur when you have sacrificed AGF to gain a veneer of wit. And yes, quoting Python as if it were the height of cool and clever is only a veneer, I am afraid. Find new material. I think we're done here. See you on the article discussion page. - Arcayne(cast a spell)09:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As S. G. Tallentyre paraphrased Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Having actually properly read the editors comments, I still disagree but they are well posited, well thought out, and have both external and internal logic. I just disagree with the editors conclusions. :) WookMuff (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that was the passage you meant, so thanks for pointing it out. I see it as a bit of 'brainstorming' because it offers a few suggestions rather than just stating an absolute preference, but "I would concede to 30% Tate murder to 70% sexual assault" doesn't look like a strong desire to reduce the sexual assault ratio, which the editor previously assessed as being 75%. To take it from 75% to 70% is pretty minor, and the ratio doesn't necessarily reduce by removing material, but rather by adding material to the other sections. This could be achieved without changing a single word of the current text regarding the rape. So could any other ratio. I didn't (and don't) see it as an attempt to cut the rape discussion. But I understand what you're saying now, so thanks. Rossrs (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your thought to yourself, I am in no ones group there, I am in my own group and if there is any consensus and I support it that is all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The admin and I were in heated discussions regarding a page, the admin reverted what they claimed was a personal attack on a talk page three times, in complete violation of WP:RPA, the first time deleting the comment in its entirety and the second time editing my comment. The disagreement with the Admin stemmed originally because they did not understand policy, and when I consistantly pointed this out, they claimed I was being rude (possible, but also completely accurate. How someone becomes an admin without understanding WP:NOTABILITY is beyond me). The ban was allegedly, about the personal attack though. However, I believe that reverting an incorrect, policy violating, removal is not the same thing as repeated personal attacks. Mostly, however, the ban was unlawful because of WP:BP, which states
Conflicts of interest Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.
I am not a nice guy. I may be rude, hell I am rude. I am also contentious, often overly passionate, and a smart arse. This admin, however, has a poor grasp of policy, seems to overstate his opinion in terms of giving it undue weight, and doesn't not pay attention. In the argument over the inclusion of a small portion taken from a published source, i repeatedly mentioned that I agreed that it probably should not be added, and that my issues were merely with the Admins poor use of wikilawyering, which is itself poor form. Hey, I am sure that if I get unblocked some other admin will reblock me, but I still believe the blocking user blocked me fro personal reasons, and not worthy ones ps. Finally, how long is $6 in terms of blocking?
Decline reason:
Block was placed with good reason - your edits were offensive and continuing to restore them following warnings was disruptive. Your block is for 24 hours, in case you weren't aware. Hersfold(t/a/c)22:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Note to Gamaliel: The stated reason, that is, which is still a violation of WP:RPA. Seriously, have you even read these policies, or just the first headers? WookMuff (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins: Another editor (neither me, a friend, or a sockpuppet) has also questioned the reasons behind this ban, over on the admins talk page. WookMuff (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you only attacked him once, I would have let it slide. But you repeatedly restored that incredibly offensive attack after multiple warnings not to. Sorry, you don't get to do that on Wikipedia, regardless of your opinion of what the other editor wrote. I can understand why you might have an outburst in reaction to those statements, but you could have easily expressed your opinion without attacking him or not restored your attack multiple times. Gamaliel (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that comments like "you are pro child molesting" definitely qualify under the WP:RPA rule that "The most serious types of personal attacks... go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project even if they are directed at you." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love that, the way you ... the relevant part of that policy. Brilliant editing to change the context. "such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors". Equating a personal attack in reference to a comment to trying to gvie out a users real name. Seriously, does anyone understand policy? WookMuff (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
When blocking may not be used...
Conflicts of interest
Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.
But hey, if reviewing adminds wanna ignore policy, I am happy to take my complaints higher.
Decline reason:
If you prefer, I'll unblock the block that you think is in violation of policy -- and then I'll immediately reblock you, for twice as long, for exactly the same reason as the original block. --jpgordon::==( o )23:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Go for it. Thank you for your time and sensitivity. Its good to see you have the same grasp of policy as the blocking user. I don't think that its a violation of policy, it IS a violation of policy. But hey, you feel free to take wikipedia policy as seriously as you consider worthy. WookMuff (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
As above, Admin used Administrative tools to block someone he was in a personal dispute with (regarding the page Talk:Roman Polanski, which is a flagrant violation of WP:BLOCK, WP:ADMIN Admin violated WP:TPO, WP:RPA and WP:CIVIL multiple times, once deleting the entire comment, twice more editing my comments. I reverted those violations, which lead to one personal attack being repeated three times. Admin violated the spirit of WP:NPA, by reading my reverts as additional counts, thereby making a case to block my access. Finally, according to WP:NPA, Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. As I was only reverting the edits by the admin who banned me, then this was obviously not the case. My first attack was a personal attack, no doubt. But the response to that (unless it is WP:Outing) is a warning. Removing another editors comments, even personal attacks, is against, even if it is disputed matter. My response to that was to revert the administrators violation, which counted in their mind as personal attack two, and then again, personal attack 3, three strikes you're out. I don't care if you don't like me, agree with my views, or anything of the sort. This IS an abuse of administrative power, a violation of almost every policy which covers talk pages, and a violation of the policies which guide admins. When I get my rights back, now or later, I will be following up on this. Of course, don't take that as a threat.:) Specific policies violated by User:Gamaliel in this dispute.WP:BLOCKING#When blocking may not be used
Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute
Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.
First offenses and isolated incidents If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse... Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported on the administrators' noticeboard. Recurring attacks Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should be resolved through the dispute resolution process. Especially when personal attacks arise as the result of heated debate over article content, informal mediation and third-party opinions are often the best ways to resolve the conflict. Similarly, Wikiquette alerts offers a "streamlined" source of outside opinion. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required. This is also the difficulty in recurring attacks. We have to assume that the attacker is willing to compromise. It is not plausible for editors to attack each other (or they would have been defined as attackers) because they want and expect strong discourse.
In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it is usually appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page.
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others
Archive of the entirety of the discussion re: Personal Attack incident Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Roman Polanski. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC) :Please do not come on my talk page and threaten me, If you do I will do nothing because threats are against policy, which I once again urge you to read. WookMuff (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC) ::It's not a threat, it's a statement of policy. You violate NPA, you get blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC) :::No, its a threat. WookMuff (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC) ::::Tomato, tomato. It'll still get you blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC) ::Do not restore that comment again. Gamaliel (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC) :::
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block was quite appropriate, as the two other admins who reviewed the block have already mentioned. You are giving the same denied unblock reason here, only in more detail. Your block will expire in a few hours. ≈ Chamaltalk¤06:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I take offense to what you said. You know, about me apparently believing you can't be a complete monster unless you're of the same calibre as Pol Pot. I take extreme offense. You don't understand; Pol Pot murdered millions of his own people, John Wayne Gacy, as you said, also murdered people. Who did Roman Polanski kill? Hell, he's had two complete monsters (Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson) ruin his life. He's done bad things. Is he a complete monster? "Complete monster" as in totally, utterly irredeemable? Are you fucking serious? (I would have put this rant on Talk:Roman Polanski, but it seemed a bit too late.) Besides, she came onto him. Doesn't make him totally redeemed, no, but he's still not a complete monster. Next time, get the definition of "complete monster" right before you throw around such extreme accusations. --LordNecronus (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised that you are close to breaking WP:3RR which can result in restraint from editing. Please familiarize yourself with the policy. Many misunderstand it. (I have myself.) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the question regarding 13-year-old girls... it would depend on whether they had actually, literally, asked for it or not. I just get really annoyed at all this paedo-hunt bullshit (yes, I know, I swore, just ignore that - it's what I do). Yes, Roman Polanski is a monster. But he's not a complete monster. And he's got more layers to his personality than just "monster who had sex with a minor". I agree, there's a line you cross; you're a monster once you cross that line, yes. But not a complete monster. "Complete monster" implies that they're beyond redemption, that death would actually be a justified punishment for them. I ask you, is Roman Polanski monstrous enough to be executed? --LordNecronus (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the emoticon; it reminded me not to take this too seriously. So, how about we agree to disagree, and just leave this argument? I mean, as you probably know already, this argument is pointless - it's not going in an article, after all (unfortunately). --LordNecronus (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proofreader77 (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Saw your comment on Rossrs regarding very old post from me. If you look at my editing history, nothing I have done to the article has changed percentages at all. The only changes have been to clean up junior high level grammar. Most of my contribution has been in talk, because I realize that I am a new editor, and that this is a consensus building process. So regardless of what I may have said, I did feel that the sex assault belonged (because it was so big and overwhelmed the page) in another article. And there it is. Happily. Please don't guess at what my motives are, Wook, you don't know me. If you want to know what motivates me, ask. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that after I had posted to you. Sorry. Although you probably still feel the same way. I don't know how I missed that on my tour through talk pages. I really couldn't remember writing that. (Stroke? Concussion?) Or was that your way of asking what motivates me? lol :0 Oberonfitch (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, Warriors for Innocence, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. I realise that you're no noob, and that this is not a joke article. But it really needs some evidence of notability before it has a chance of staying up. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 08:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Roman Polanski. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Roman Polanski. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC) :Please do not come on my talk page and threaten me, If you do I will do nothing because threats are against policy, which I once again urge you to read. WookMuff (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC) ::It's not a threat, it's a statement of policy. You violate NPA, you get blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC) :::No, its a threat. WookMuff (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC) ::::Tomato, tomato. It'll still get you blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC) ::Do not restore that comment again. Gamaliel (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC) :::
